The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[roydo]

There have always been poor people but for most of the 20th Century even the poor saw living standards rise.

What is unique about the last period of Government is the fact that the poor, working and non-working have seen a fall in living standards at a time when the wealthiest members of society have never had an easier time of increasing their wealth.

Hence the question, is that fair?

No, it isnt. Was being flippant in between cutting back the rain forest that my back garden resembles. There were some very blunt instruments used, that is for sure, to try to solve a problem that wasnt really that a big deal, in the scheme of things.

If an issue has taken a generation to develop, (welfare), it will take a generation to fix, imo.

 

[Mrk]

Perhaps for the benefit of those finding @Tubey 's question a little difficult we can break the question down further and do a multiple choice style answer:

i) Is it fair that the poor have got poorer in the last 5 years as a result of Government economic policy?
A) Yes
B) No

ii) Is it fair that the rich have got richer in the last 5 years as a result of Government economic policy?
A)Yes
B)No

Both questions are ever so slightly vacuous, because you seem to be suggesting that both of those things have happened only because of the government, when you know full well that the government has very little influence over these matters.

The rich have gotten richer because they're rich - they're always going to get richer, the government has practically no control over that - it can try and get more tax from the rich by cutting/increasing taxes, but apart from that, they're powerless.

The poor have gotten poorer (which is a debatable assertion depending on what statistics you read and what politicians you lend your ear to) because wage inflation has lagged behind inflation for several years, and the government controls neither wages nor inflation.

It's this kind of patently blinkered and partisan points that I find baffling and somewhat amusing - I just don't understand why people become so entrenched in one way of thinking that they can't accept that all governments of both the left and the right do some good things and do some bad things. There's no doubt that the last government made many mistakes, but I ask, what government in the past 100 years hasn't made mistakes? There's also no doubt that the last government also had some successes, and I'd also ask, what government hasn't?

 

[Tubey]

The current distribution is disgusting yes. But it is possible for the poor and rich to both increase their wealth at the same time. Wealth isn't finite as the right will keep telling us. We have wealth creators remember.

This is my point - but in terms of reducing a deficit, it's also possible for the rich and poor to have wealth taken away at the same time and rate too.

That's why I'm talking about moral fairness - if the rich and poor alike took a, I dunno, say 10% drop in relative wealth apiece, then that to me is fair. What isn't fair is the poor taking massive comparative drops in wealth at the same time the rich get richer, as a direct result of government policy being pro-rich and anti-poor.

 

[daylightrobber]

That's not actually my question though! If it were, my answer would be B and A!

There's nothing wrong with people earning money; what my question is whether there's something wrong with the less well off in society being hammered by central policy, whilst the well off aren't.

It's not a difficult one to get to grips with really. It's all about fairness.

 

[daylightrobber]

Both questions are ever so slightly vacuous, because you seem to be suggesting that both of those things have happened only because of the government, when you know full well that the government has very little influence over these matters.

The rich have gotten richer because they're rich - they're always going to get richer, the government has practically no control over that - it can try and get more tax from the rich by cutting/increasing taxes, but apart from that, they're powerless.

The poor have gotten poorer (which is a debatable assertion depending on what statistics you read and what politicians you lend your ear to) because wage inflation has lagged behind inflation for several years, and the government controls neither wages nor inflation.

It's this kind of patently blinkered and partisan points that I find baffling and somewhat amusing - I just don't understand why people become so entrenched in one way of thinking that they can't accept that all governments of both the left and the right do some good things and do some bad things. There's no doubt that the last government made many mistakes, but I ask, what government in the past 100 years hasn't made mistakes? There's also no doubt that the last government also had some successes, and I'd also ask, what government hasn't?

The government can have a lot of influence when it comes to the poor. It can clamp down on all the exploitative practices which the poor have little choice but to accept. They can introduce measures such as the minimum wage, tax banding etc.

In regards to the poor getting poorer, the debate is a false one. There is the truth and there is denial.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Q - what do you think would happen to the teaching profession if teachers wages doubled?

It it went along with higher quality teachers then I dare say standards might improve. As I mentioned earlier however, there's a lot more to learning than what happens at school. Finland are widely admired, for instance, and there learning is seen as something that is hugely important, so it's perhaps no surprise that teaching is a hugely respected profession (with very high entry requirements), with the salary to boot.

I'm not sure education is as valued in Britain as it is elsewhere.

It's quite simple what he's asking Bruce - is it fair that, in general, the poor have been ransacked whilst the rich have got richer over the past five years? It's not a political question, and it's not something you need facts or figures about - it's a moral question.

I can take British politics completely out of it if you want - say there's 5,000 people - 4,990 of those people are poor and lose more as a percentage of their wealth over five years, whilst 10 are rich and gain more. Is that fair?

At the risk of repeating myself, I've said many times that there are a huge number of things that have influenced the labour market over the past decade, that has made it 'easier' for those with capital to make a lot of money but that has put pressure on wages. Fairness is I'm afraid a rather infantile way of looking at it.

Having cars automated for instance may be seen as unfair to a cabbie, but it's seen as quite fair by people who pay less for transport, or who don't get killed on the roads, or who don't worry about air pollution as much...

So please, enough already about fairness, you're not a kid trying to get sweets at the checkout.

Perhaps for the benefit of those finding @Tubey 's question a little difficult we can break the question down further and do a multiple choice style answer:

i) Is it fair that the poor have got poorer in the last 5 years as a result of Government economic policy?
A) Yes
B) No

ii) Is it fair that the rich have got richer in the last 5 years as a result of Government economic policy?
A)Yes
B)No

Changes in wealth distribution, as explained previously, is way more complicated than government policy. Suggesting otherwise is the exact same logic that thinks that Labour caused the financial crash.

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

David Cameron blames 'brain fade' for getting his football team wrong
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...rain-fade-for-getting-his-football-team-wrong

Sports stars, politicians and football fans react with amused disbelief after PM says he supports West Ham United when he is in fact an Aston Villa fan

 

[The Esk]

Both questions are ever so slightly vacuous, because you seem to be suggesting that both of those things have happened only because of the government, when you know full well that the government has very little influence over these matters.

The rich have gotten richer because they're rich - they're always going to get richer, the government has practically no control over that - it can try and get more tax from the rich by cutting/increasing taxes, but apart from that, they're powerless.

The poor have gotten poorer (which is a debatable assertion depending on what statistics you read and what politicians you lend your ear to) because wage inflation has lagged behind inflation for several years, and the government controls neither wages nor inflation.

It's this kind of patently blinkered and partisan points that I find baffling and somewhat amusing - I just don't understand why people become so entrenched in one way of thinking that they can't accept that all governments of both the left and the right do some good things and do some bad things. There's no doubt that the last government made many mistakes, but I ask, what government in the past 100 years hasn't made mistakes? There's also no doubt that the last government also had some successes, and I'd also ask, what government hasn't?

I accept entirely the question was vacuous (more so than slightly), in a sense that was the intent. The answer to Tubey's original question on fairness is so obvious yet unanswered by a couple of posters I was labouring the point (pardon the pun).

Partisanship - well yes, we're in the middle of a closely fought election, I'm a Labour Party member and supporter so I'm always going to be partisan in that respect.

I would argue strongly that any Government has a huge amount of control over the well being (financially) of the poor, less so of the rich although macro-economic policies can materially alter the asset values of the rich up and down - in the case of the last 5 years most certainly up.

 

[Mrk]

The government can have a lot of influence when it comes to the poor. It can clamp down on all the exploitative practices which the poor have little choice but to accept. They can introduce measures such as the minimum wage, tax banding etc

You'll need to do a lot to persuade me that any of the measures you've listed could be classed as 'a lot of influence'.

While governments can crack down on exploitative practices, it's worth mentioning that governments also exploit the poor. It is also worth remembering that there is collateral damage to every government 'clamp down', so while a clamp down would benefit some, it wouldn't others.

The minimum wage only applies to a minority of people who would be classed as poor, there are plenty of people who earn more than the minimum wage that could rightfully be classed as poor. And while the minimum wage has helped a lot who earned below the mimumum wage, it has also condemned some people to a life of worklessness.

As for tax, it doesn't make a huge difference. For example, the last government increased the personal allowance quite dramatically, which is a fantastic policy, but in real terms, it doesn't mean too much in terms of extra money to those at the bottom, because they don't pay a huge amount of income tax in the first place.

In regards to the poor getting poorer, the debate is a false one. There is the truth and there is denial.

I'm not completely convinced of your neutrality on the subject, so I'd prefer to see statistics.

 

[The Esk]

Fairness is I'm afraid a rather infantile way of looking at it.

Definition of fair:

treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination

 

[Tubey]

Definition of fair:

treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination

He's giving stock Tory politician answers to avoid answering the actual question for some reason, despite me boiling it down to being as apolitical as it possibly could be.

The answer, as you have said, is so extremely obvious to anyone with even a vague moral compass as to be ludicrous to even ask, yet for some reason several posters seem incapable of answering it.

 

[Clint Planet]

The government can have a lot of influence when it comes to the poor. It can clamp down on all the exploitative practices which the poor have little choice but to accept. They can introduce measures such as the minimum wage, tax banding etc.

Of course they can. Poverty is a political decision.

 

[The Esk]

so I'd prefer to see statistics

http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/spcc/wp10.pdf

New analysis from LSE and the University of Essex shows that the poorest groups lost the biggest share of their incomes on average, and those in the bottom half of incomes lost overall, following benefit and direct tax changes since the 2010 election.

The analysis also shows:

• The outcome for those in the bottom half of incomes is in contrast to those in the top half of incomes, who gained from direct tax cuts, with the exception of most of the top 5 per cent – although within this 5 percent group those at the very top gained, because of the cut in the top rate of income tax.
• In total, the changes have not contributed to cutting the deficit. Rather, the savings from reducing benefits and tax credits have been spent on raising the tax-free income tax allowance.
• The analysis challenges the idea that those with incomes in the top tenth have lost as great a share of their incomes as those with the lowest incomes.

The research, co-authored by LSE's Professor John Hills, suggests that who has gained or lost most as a result of the Coalition’s policy changes depends critically on when reforms are measured from.

Treasury analysis, suggesting that those at the top have lost proportionately most, starts from January 2010 and therefore includes the effects of income tax changes at the top announced by Labour in 2009, and which took effect in April 2010, before the election. But if the Coalition’s impacts are measured comparing the system in 2014-15 with what would have happened in the system inherited in May 2010, they have a more clearly regressive effect.

This resulted from the combination of: changes to benefits and tax credits making them less generous for the bottom and middle of the distribution; changes to Council Tax and benefits from which those in the bottom half lost but the top half gained; higher personal income tax allowances which meant the largest gains for those in the middle, but with some income tax increases for the top 5 per cent; and the ‘triple lock’ on state pensions which were most valuable as a proportion of their incomes for the bottom half.

Some groups were clear losers on average – including lone parent families, large families, children, and middle-aged people (at the age when many are parents), while others were gainers, including two-earner couples, and those in their 50s and early 60s.

Professor Holly Sutherland, report co-author and Director of EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex commented: “It is striking how seemingly technical issues or minor differences in assumptions like which tax system is taken as the starting point for Coalition reforms, or whether to assume 100% take-up of benefits, have very big implications for what we conclude about whether the rich or the poor were harder hit.”

Professor Hills added: “What is most remarkable about these results is that the overall effect of direct tax and benefit changes under the Coalition have not contributed to cutting the deficit. The savings from benefit reforms have been offset by the cost of raising the tax-free income tax allowance. But those with incomes in the bottom half have lost more on average from benefit and tax credit changes than they have gained from the higher tax allowance.”

I rest my case M'Lord.

 

[Mrk]

I accept entirely the question was vacuous (more so than slightly), in a sense that was the intent. The answer to Tubey's original question on fairness is so obvious yet unanswered by a couple of posters I was labouring the point (pardon the pun).

Paritsanship - well yes, we're in the middle of a closely fought election, I'm a Labour Party member and supporter so I'm always going to be partisan in that respect.

I'm afraid that I'll never understand partisanship. If the Labour party come up with a policy I like, I'll support the policy. If the Tories come up with a policy I like, I'll support that.

I would argue strongly that any Government has a huge amount of control over the well being (financially) of the poor, less so of the rich although macro-economic policies can materially alter the asset values of the rich up and down - in the case of the last 5 years most certainly up.

I honestly don't see how - all governments are slaves to the economy. Politicians can reduce taxes here and there and create a new benefit or two, but neither have any substantial impact.

 

[daylightrobber]

You'll need to do a lot to persuade me that any of the measures you've listed could be classed as 'a lot of influence'.

While governments can crack down on exploitative practices, it's worth mentioning that governments also exploit the poor. It is also worth remembering that there is collateral damage to every government 'clamp down', so while a clamp down would benefit some, it wouldn't others.

The minimum wage only applies to a minority of people who would be classed as poor, there are plenty of people who earn more than the minimum wage that could rightfully be classed as poor. And while the minimum wage has helped a lot who earned below the mimumum wage, it has also condemned some people to a life of worklessness.

As for tax, it doesn't make a huge difference. For example, the last government increased the personal allowance quite dramatically, which is a fantastic policy, but in real terms, it doesn't mean too much in terms of extra money to those at the bottom, because they don't pay a huge amount of income tax in the first place.



I'm not completely convinced of your neutrality on the subject, so I'd prefer to see statistics.

Not again! There are organisations who are experts in this field, such as The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Banardos, PSE, Oxfam and even the UN. Please refer to their literature.